T he Hon orab le Patrick J. Dugg an, United St ate s Distri ct Judge for the Ea stern * Di str ict of M ic hig an, s itti ng by des ig nati on. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R PU BL IC A TI ON Fi le Name: 08a 0514n.0 6 Fi led : Aug ust20, 2008 No . 06-4472 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT DA NI EL L. R ITTNER , SR ., ) ) ON APPE AL FROM THE Plaint if f-Appe llant, ) UNITE D STA T ES DIST RICT ) COURT FOR THE NORT HERN v . ) DI STRIC T OF OH IO ) LESLI E KI ND ER , C OR RE CTIO NS C EN TER ) OF NORTHW EST OHIO, LINDA ) SH AM BAR GER , J IM D EN NI S, a nd ) SC OTT BRA DB EE. ) ) Defend ant s-Appe llees. )
BEFORE: DA UGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges and DUGGA N , District Judge * DUGGA N, District Judge . Plaintif f-app ellantDaniel Rittner Sr. (“Ri ttne r”) appeal s t he di str ict c our t’ s d is mis sal of his ci v il r ig hts acti on pursuantto the “ three str ik es” r ule i n 28 U. S.C . § 1915( g ). Thi s c our t finds thatthe dis tr ict c our t’ s d is mis sal of Ri ttner ’s co mplai nt was proper , as R ittner prev iou sl y

fil ed more tha n three l awsui ts that
w ere di smi ss ed on the g ro unds that they w ere fri v olo us, mal ic iou s, or fail ed to st ate a cl aim upon w hic h reli ef maybe g ra nted and t here i s n o s ug g est ion thatR ittner “ is under imm inen t dan ger of se rious physical injury .” W e the refore af f irm the district court’s orde r. BACKGROUNDN o. 06- 4472

R ittn e r, S r. v. K in d e r, e t a l.

2 Ri ttner , an Ohi o pr is oner , fil ed a pro se acti on ag ain st defendants- appel lan ts pursuantto 42 U .S.C . § 1983 on Aug ust14, 2006. On September 28, 2006, findi ng tha t on atleast f iv e prior occasion s Rittner f iled civ il actions tha t failed to state a claim upon w hic h reli ef coul d be g ra nted, the dis tr ict c our t i ss ued an opi nio n and order dism issing Rittner’s com plaintpursua nt to 28 U.S.C. 19 15(g). Rittner no w

app eals th at dism issal, cont end ing that the district court incorrectly foun d tha t he was not in imm inen t dan ger of se rious physical injury . Rittner also cont ends that some o r all of his pr ior acti ons w ere i mprop er ly di smi ss ed. A NA LYSIS 28 U.S. C. § 191 5(g) proh ibits a prisone r from bringing a civ il action or app eal if the prisoner ha s “three strikes.” Th e stat ute reads: In no ev ent s hal l a pr is oner br ing a c iv il acti on or

appeal a j udg ment i n a ci v il acti on or

proceed ing under

thi s s ect ion i f the pr is oner has , on 3 or m o re p ri o r o c c a s io n s , wh il e in c a rc e ra t e d o r d e t a in e d in a n y fa c il it y, broug ht an acti on or

appeal i n a c our

t of the Uni ted S tates thatw as dis mis sed on th e g ro unds that iti s fr ivolo us, mal ic iou s, or fail s t o s tate a cl aim upon w hic h reli ef maybe g ra nted, unl ess the pr is oner i s u nder im m in e n td a n ge r o f

se ri o u s p h ys ic a l i nju ry. 28 U .S.C . § 1915( g ). Thus under the sta tute, there i s a n ex cept ion to the t hree s tr ik es ru le w here the pr is oner al leg es that he or

sh e i s u nder

i mminentdang er

of ser iou s physi cal i nju ry . Id

. The al leg ati ons in Ri ttner’s co mplai nt do not w ar ra nt ap pli cat ion of the i mminent dan ger ex cept ion in § 191 5(g). W hile the Sixth Circuit has no t def ined the te rm “i mminentdang er” for pur poses of thi s s ect ion , ot her C ircui ts hav e hel d tha t t o meet theN o. 06- 4472

R ittn e r, S r. v. K in d e r, e t a l.

3 re q uirement, the t hreat o r pr is on c ondi ti on “ must be real and prox imat e” and the d ang er of ser iou s p hy si cal i nju ry mustex is t atthe ti me the compl ain t i s fil ed. See, e.g., Ci ar pagl ini v. Sai ni , 352 F .3d 3 28, 3 30 ( 7th C ir . 200 3) ; Abd ul-Akba r v. McKelvie , 239 F. 3d 307, 313 (3 d C ir . 200 1) ( en banc ). Thus a pr is oner ’s as ser ti on th at he or

sh e faced dang er

i n the pas t i s i nsuffici ent t o i nv oke the e x cept ion

. Id . Other Circuits also hav e hel d tha t di str ict c our ts maydeny

a pr is oner

l eav e to proceed pursuantto § 1915( g ) w hen t he pr is oner ’s cl aims of immi nent dang er are “ conc lus or

y or r idi cul ous, ” Ci ar pagl ini, 352 F .3d a t 331 , or are “ ‘ cl ear ly

bas ele ss ’ (i .e. are fantast icor del usi onal and rise to the level of

‘ir ration al or w holly incredib le.’ ” Gibbs v. Cross , 160 F .3d 9 62, 9 6 7 (3d Cir. 19 9 8 ) (qu o ti n g Den ton v . Her nandez , 504 U .S. 25, 3 3, 11 2 S. C t. 1728, 173 3 (199 2)). In hi s c omplai nt, Ri ttner al leg ed th at t he defendants are prev enti ng hi m from usi ng the pr is on l aw

l ibrar y and from obta ini ng l eg al ass is tanc e and mater ial s, hav e not proper ly proces sed his g ri ev ances , and hav e s ubj ect ed hi m to t hreats and int imi dati on. Ri ttner co ntended thati nsuffici ent a cc ess to the l aw l ibrar y and leg al ass is tanc e and mater ial s h ind ered hi s a bil ity to file and/or

prosec ute c ertai n l awsui ts. There i s n o ind ic ati on th at R ittner

faces immi nent phy si cal per il as a resul t of hi s a ll eg ed i nabi li ty to file and/or

prosec ute l awsui ts. W hil e R ittner al so all eg ed th at he hasbeen int imi dated and threat ene d if

he do es no t stop f iling gr ievances, th e examp les he pro v ided of suchN o. 06- 4472

R ittn e r, S r. v. K in d e r, e t a l.

For ex am ple, Rittn er alleged tha t the followi ng response to one of his 1 g ri ev ances co nst it uted a threat a nd i nti midat ion : T he CCNO [Corrections Cen ter of Northw est Oh io] Executive D irector is nothere to be your leg al assistan t. Y ou a re to w ork throu gh your Case Mana ger and Ms. Sham barger as I have directed you in th e pa st. T his is f riv olou s. Y ou a re abu sing the gr ievance proce dure s and my time . Cease and des is t. (D is t. Ct . D oc. 1, ¶ 47, q uoti ng Ex . 15. ) For ex ample, R ittner

al leg ed: “ In c onsi der ing the total ity of the fact s a nd 2 infor mati on g []at hered by Pl ain ti ff he h ad g ood reason to fear for his l ife. The int imi dati on was inc re dib le. Al l the i nmates i n the uni t were w [e]l l aw are of the threats re cei v ed from D enni s a nd hi s s taff

. (D is t. Ct . D oc. 1, ¶ 49. ) For ex am ple, Rittn er claime d tha t “the con tinue d respo nses to his g riev ance s” 3 (i .e. deni als , t hat h is g ri ev ances are fri v olo us, and the h e mustst op abus ing the gr ievance proce ss) “ lead [him] to fear for his life .” ( Dist. Ct. Doc. 1, ¶ 48. ) Rittner also all eg ed th at a pr iv ate i nv est ig ator wor ki ng for h im “ firml y w ar ned [ him] of the t hreats against him mad e by D enn is” and ad v ised him : “Y OU NEED TO ST OP MAKING COMPLAI NTS , YOU ARE GOING T O GET HURT .” ( Id ., ¶ 62 .) 4 “threat s” and “intim idatio n” eithe r do notconstitu te th reats of physical i njury, are 1 desc ri bed w it h i nsuffici ent fact s a nd det ail to est abl is h tha t he is i n dang er of immi nent physi cal i nju ry , or

are “ ir ra ti onal or

w hol ly i ncredi ble .” 2 3 As ind ic ated prev iou sl y , R ittner al so cont ends that some o r all of the p ri or acti ons on w hic h the di str ict j udg e bas ed hi s “ three s tr ik es” findi ng w ere i mprop er ly di smi ss ed. The is sue of w hether

R ittner ’s ear li er

ca ses w ere c or re ctl y

di smi ss ed, h ow ev er , i s n ot wit h in t h e p u rvi e w o f

t h is a p p e a l a n d Ri tt n e r n e ve r a p p e a le d t h o s e d e c is io n s d ire ct ly.

CO NC LU SION In s ummary , we find that the d is tr ict c our t proper ly

dete rmi ned t hat R ittner w asN o. 06- 4472

R ittn e r, S r. v. K in d e r, e t a l.

5 subj ectto the t hree s tr ik es ru le and t hat h isco mplai nt fail ed to su g g estthathe was “u nder i mminentdang er

of ser iou s p hy si cal i nju ry .” Therefore, w e A FFIRM the district court’s orde r dismissing Ri ttne r’s compla int pu rsuan t to § 19 15(g).